Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPutin and Hitlers foreign policy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Putin and Hitlers foreign policy
    Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 01:55
Hitler's foreign policy before the war rested on making Germany a great power and bringing the Germanic people back into a united German nation. Hence his desire for the Sudetenland, the Polish coridoor (and South Tyrol, though he let that be)
 
Putin uses his oil and gas as a bargaining chip to the rest of Europe, uses all of his influence in preventing Ukraine and Georgia joining Nato (and in ukraines case, the EU)
 
Is he 'protecting' these Russian populations or is it a part of a grander delusion, a method of returning Russia to some of its former geopolitical might?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 01:57
Originally posted by Parnell

Hitler's foreign policy before the war rested on making Germany a great power and bringing the Germanic people back into a united German nation. Hence his desire for the Sudetenland, the Polish coridoor (and South Tyrol, though he let that be)
 
Putin uses his oil and gas as a bargaining chip to the rest of Europe, uses all of his influence in preventing Ukraine and Georgia joining Nato (and in ukraines case, the EU)
 
Is he 'protecting' these Russian populations or is it a part of a grander delusion, a method of returning Russia to some of its former geopolitical might?
 
In my humble and modest opinion, George Bush is a lot closer to Hitler in character, military actions and political ideology than Putin Wink


Edited by pinguin - 30-Apr-2008 at 01:58
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 01:59
I don't think the two situations are really comparable. Hitler was intent on territorial expansion into a united nation before a grand push east to conquer yet more land, Putin is simply using his resources for diplomatic leverage. As it is the Russians are having enough trouble crushing their own insurgencies (Chechnya) to seriously consider imperialistic conquest abroad.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 03:28
This topic is a complete BS  Dead   Thumbs%20Down
 
Only person lacking any understanding of Hitlers foreign policy and the situation in modern Russia can make such "comparacents."
 
Russia has been and remains a corrupt regime primarily concerned with making money, but not "returning any geopolitical might."
 
But even that corrupted regime was forced to the edge by agressive movenment to the East by Nato (in clear violation of all USSR-USA agreements) and now even missiles are going to be located in Czech republic in Poland aiming at "Iran."
 
What is Russia supposed to do? Idiotic American policy to isolate Russia just creates more trouble in the already very unstable world and forces Russia to look for "retaliation."  But honestly, it's the last thing what Russia really wanted to do.
 
The West wants to see the hostile Russia, ok you will get it finally after persistent requests...
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 05:28
Originally posted by Parnell

Is he 'protecting' these Russian populations or is it a part of a grander delusion, a method of returning Russia to some of its former geopolitical might?


Russian populations in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and some other USSR countries? The only Russians to speak of in some of these areas today are Russian troops.

Russia just wants a monopoly on energy resources pure and simple. Even if you look at tiny  Chechnya, the real reason Russia never accepted its independence like it did other states is because they have a very important pipeline to build that goes directly through it to all the way to the Black Sea.


Edited by kafkas - 30-Apr-2008 at 05:30
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 06:13

Actually, almost all the population of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Russian citizens.

Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 10:19
How do you define a 'Russian citizen' there? I guess they used to be Soviet citizens, or were they already citizens of the Georgian SSR? Didn't they automatically become Georgian citizens when the Soviet Union broke up?
 
Do you mean almost all the population in those territories are ethnically Russian? Or they were citizens of the RSFSR who migrated to Georgia?
 
As far as I'm concerned such questions are irrelevant anyway. What counts is what the local population wants to be, not what they technically are or were.
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 12:31
Originally posted by Sarmat12

But even that corrupted regime was forced to the edge by agressive movenment to the East by Nato (in clear violation of all USSR-USA agreements)

Which USA-USSR agreements you are talking about?


and now even missiles are going to be located in Czech republic in Poland aiming at "Iran."

Not for "aiming", but for "intercepting". Thats Defensive system after all so how can it harm Russia.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 13:19
Originally posted by Sarmat12

This topic is a complete BS  Dead   Thumbs%20Down
 
Only person lacking any understanding of Hitlers foreign policy and the situation in modern Russia can make such "comparacents."
 
Russia has been and remains a corrupt regime primarily concerned with making money, but not "returning any geopolitical might."
 
But even that corrupted regime was forced to the edge by agressive movenment to the East by Nato (in clear violation of all USSR-USA agreements) and now even missiles are going to be located in Czech republic in Poland aiming at "Iran."
 
What is Russia supposed to do? Idiotic American policy to isolate Russia just creates more trouble in the already very unstable world and forces Russia to look for "retaliation."  But honestly, it's the last thing what Russia really wanted to do.
 
The West wants to see the hostile Russia, ok you will get it finally after persistent requests...
 
Chill angry mastadon... Its spelt 'comparison' btw.
 
Are they really so different? Hitler's primary goals were uniting a Greater Germany of German citizens and in the long term, a colonial empire in the east (Lebensraum) for the Germans. I'm obviously not saying Putin needs Lebensraum in eastern Europe. Putin's primary goal is restoring Russia to (Some of) former strength. If you ever listen to his rhetoric, Russian strength is a recurring theme.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 13:38

Careful my friend. People usually don't take kindly to their country being insulted.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 15:02
People need to learn to seperate their politicians from their actual people. I'm just thinking aloud regarding Putins foreign policy.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:19
Originally posted by Parnell

People need to learn to seperate their politicians from their actual people. I'm just thinking aloud regarding Putins foreign policy.
 
Associating Putin with Hitler is not what I consider a fair and ballanced or serious analysis.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:23
Originally posted by Parnell

... 
 
Are they really so different? Hitler's primary goals were uniting a Greater Germany of German citizens and in the long term, a colonial empire in the east (Lebensraum) for the Germans. I'm obviously not saying Putin needs Lebensraum in eastern Europe. Putin's primary goal is restoring Russia to (Some of) former strength. If you ever listen to his rhetoric, Russian strength is a recurring theme.
 
Fellow. I already told you that BUSH is a lot more imperialist that Putin. Why you don't listen?
 
If you want to criticize Russia, why don't you start for your own country that collaborated with the United States to destroy Iraq.... a country that got nothing to do with the 9/11, but that was sacrified to help Bush to stay in power?
 
Think about it. Who is more facist, or who resemble Hitler the most.
 
 
Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:38
pinguin

Bush wants other rip other countries off, Putin wants to annex them. I don't think one is more imperialist than the other.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 02:58

More than anexing, I see Putin acting to stop the former soviet republic for continuing breaking appart. Nothing wrong with that. Lincoln did exactly that in the United States and nobody calls him a Hitler. China is doing the same. Canada has done it during centuries stopping Quebec from running away. And even in South America all countries are helping Bolivia to prevent that country becomes a collection of microscopic nations.

Russians today mind theirs own business, which is fine. The other superpower is the one that is creating throuble at global scale. Fortunately, the democrats will win the next election and they'll fix the United State and the fascists republicans in power.
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:01
Originally posted by kafkas

pinguin

Bush wants other rip other countries off, Putin wants to annex them. I don't think one is more imperialist than the other.
 
Wake up my friend LOL
 
Putin doesn't want "to annex" anything.  And he is leaving anyway from the top seat of the Russian politics.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
kafkas View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:03
Originally posted by pinguin

More than anexing, I see Putin acting to stop the former soviet republic for continuing breaking appart. Nothing wrong with that. Lincoln did exactly that in the United States and nobody calls him a Hitler. China is doing the same. Canada has done it during centuries stopping Quebec from running away. And even in South America all countries are helping Bolivia to prevent that country becomes a collection of microscopic nations.

Russians today mind theirs own business, which is fine. The other superpower is the one that is creating throuble at global scale. Fortunately, the democrats will win the next election and they'll fix the United State and the fascists republicans in power.
 

Okay I'll leave Russia's domestic policies towards its "autonomous" Republics alone for now. Now I'm talking about Russian imperialism against independent states such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and other former Soviet states. I'm talking about Russian imperialism before, during, and after the Soviet Union.  Russia is just as bad as you accuse the United States to be if not worse. At least American imperialism doesn't involve forcing tens of millions of people to speak a different language or change their religion and culture. Russians, at least the politicians and military, are far from a people who "mind their own business" (I wish they did).

Now as for the topic, I think Hitler and Putin both want to subjugate other nations, but their reasons for wanting to do so are different.


Edited by kafkas - 01-May-2008 at 04:07
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:18
Originally posted by Parnell

 
Chill angry mastadon... Its spelt 'comparison' btw.
 
Are they really so different? Hitler's primary goals were uniting a Greater Germany of German citizens and in the long term, a colonial empire in the east (Lebensraum) for the Germans. I'm obviously not saying Putin needs Lebensraum in eastern Europe. Putin's primary goal is restoring Russia to (Some of) former strength. If you ever listen to his rhetoric, Russian strength is a recurring theme.
 
Are they really different... After Hitler came to power, within 6 years Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, the second world war started and holocoust began...
 
Putin has been in power for 8 years and now he is stepping down. What did Russia annex? Did Russia put millions of people in concentration camps? Did it adopt Arian purity laws? Did it officially declare even one time that it wants to reconquer all the "lost territories," the thing that Hitler had been saying with regard to the lost German territories all the time until the war finally started?
 
Or may be every politician who wants to make his country stronger is "Hitler" in your view?  The COMPARISON of Hitler with Putin makes no more sense than the comparison of Bertie Ahern with Mussolini.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:27
Originally posted by kafkas


Okay I'll leave Russia's domestic policies towards its "autonomous" Republics alone for now. Now I'm talking about Russian imperialism against independent states such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and other former Soviet states. I'm talking about Russian imperialism before, during, and after the Soviet Union.  Russia is just as bad as you accuse the United States to be if not worse. At least American imperialism doesn't involve forcing tens of millions of people to speak a different language or change their religion and culture. Russians, at least the politicians and military, are far from a people who "mind their own business" (I wish they did).

Now as for the topic, I think Hitler and Putin both want to subjugate other nations, but their reasons for wanting to do so are different.
 
Nonsense. How Russia is forcing 10 millions of people now "to speak a different language." How "Russian imperialism" works against Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Azerbaijan now?
 
How?
 
Millions of Ukrainians, Azeri, Ukrainians and Georgians fyi are going to Russia now in search for work and better life. Russia has the second biggest number of immigrants in the world after the USA. Most of those are immigrants from these countries.
 
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are different story. First of all, in the 1990th most of the fighters who fought on their side against Georgians where their ethnic kin from North Caucasus, with the biggest part from Chechnia and even other "Chircassians" from Turkey and Middle East. Secondly, Russia is not going to recognize their independence. What Russia does now is simply the reaction to the US foreign policy, I mean Kosovo.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 01-May-2008 at 04:31
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 04:54
Originally posted by Roberts


Which USA-USSR agreements you are talking about?
 
I'm talking about the mutual oral agreements between the leaders of the USSR and USA which were reached during the negotiations on the reunification of Germany and the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from the Eastern Germany in 1990-91. George Bush senior and James Baker several times clearly and solemnly promissed that Nato would never move more to the East. For your information, any official statements of public figures like these are regarding as representing the official position of their countries and are followed with all related consequences and responsibilities.
 
A good insight from the interview of a very bright IMO American Russian studies professor, Stephen Cohen:
 
 
"The second thing we did which was equally bad, and this is often forgotten, that in 1990-1991, when Bush asked Gorbachev to permit both a united Germany and a united Germany in NATO, and Gorbachev agreed and that was a historic agreement, Gorbachev was promised, Russia was promised by Bush, and Ill quote his secretary of state at the time, James Baker, that NATO will not move one inch to the east. That was a solemn promise.  Now in Russia, it is said that Gorbachev should have gotten it in writing as a treaty.  But when it came to the United States, Gorbachev was a little naive.  He was smitten with his own ideas of the new thinking, a common European home of human values.  He thought that we ascribe to those values, that the United States saw eye to eye to him about that and about how great powers should treat each other.  But Clinton during the 1990s violated that solemn promise and began to expand NATO eastward toward Russia, and that continues today.  That expansion of NATO and the violation of that promise that has driven the conflicts with Russia over both Ukraine and Georgia, and so long as NATO continues to take those former Soviet republics in, that conflict will continue to existAfter all [NATO is] a military alliance right on Russias borders.  The former Baltic republics are already in NATO, NATO is knocking on Ukraines door, and there are U.S. bases already in Central Asia. Russia sees itself as being encircled, and so long as that is happening, so long as Russia has that view, there will be no good or stable relations between Russia and the West." 


Originally posted by Roberts


Not for "aiming", but for "intercepting". Thats Defensive system after all so how can it harm Russia.
 
Of course, intercepting Iranian rockets in Europe, while being actually much closer to Moscow than Teheran... Obviously, they are supposed to "intercept" something else as well. I wonder, how the US would react if Russia installes some weird rocket-technical stuff in Mexico in order to "intercept" rockets from Brazil.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.